SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vivek Goyal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 19 December, 2017

CRM No.M-22687 of 2016


Criminal Misc. No.M- 22687 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: December 19 , 2017.

Vivek Goyal …… PETITIONER (s)


State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Rathore, DAG, Punjab

Mr. S.S.Sarwara, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.71 dated 18.06.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC,

registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana.

It is submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the matter

has been amicably resolved between the parties. The petitioner and respondent

No.2 have decided to part ways. Petition under Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (for short – the ‘HMA’) has been filed. It is agreed that a

1 of 3
24-12-2017 00:35:22 :::
CRM No.M-22687 of 2016

sum of `12.5 lakhs shall be handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.2 as

full and final settlement of all her claims – past, present and future qua the

petitioner. A sum of `4,00,000/- was handed over to her at the time of recording

of statements of the parties at first motion in proceedings under Section 13B of

the HMA. Today, a demand draft bearing No.164844 dated 17.11.2017

amounting to `4,00,000/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Agarnagar, Ludhiana

in favour of respondent No.2 has been handed over to learned counsel for

respondent No.2 for onward transmission to her in terms of the said settlement.

The petitioner undertakes to hand over the rest of the settled amount to

respondent No.2 at the time of recording of statements of the parties at second

motion in proceedings under Section 13B of the HMA. The petitioner, it is

submitted, has joined investigation. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 verifies and affirms the factual

position as above. It is submitted that his client has no objection if this petition

is allowed subject to the petitioner strictly adhering to the terms and conditions

of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ravinder

Kumar, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation. There are no

allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to abscond, if

released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, specifically

the compromise arrived at between the parties, but without commenting upon or

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed.

Consequently, order dated 11.07.2016 is made absolute.

2 of 3
24-12-2017 00:35:23 :::
CRM No.M-22687 of 2016

However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to file appropriate

application in this case, if the terms and conditions of settlement arrived at

between the parties are not adhered to by the petitioner.

December 19 , 2017. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
24-12-2017 00:35:23 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation